1872 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the Structural Adjustment
Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) When did the Minister announce the package.

(2) What funding was committed to the package.

(3) What grant monies have been paid under the package.

(4) When were program guidelines and applications forms made publicly
available.

(5) When did the application period commence.

(6) When did the application period close.

1873 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $247 500
for the Kaygee’s manufacturing facility project under the Structural
Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1874 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $450 000
for the Chrome Engineering Expansion project under the Structural Adjustment
Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1875 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $100 000
for the Gin Gin Bakery project under the Structural Adjustment Package
for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1876 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $115 000
for the Cadastral Survey Data Management project under the Structural
Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1877 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $93 500
for the Fraser Coast Packhouse project under the Structural Adjustment
Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1878 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $550 000
for the Hervey Bay Organic Processing Plant project under the Structural
Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact;

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation;
and

(ag) (i)
what exceptional characteristics did the project proposal possess, and
(ii) what significant and/or widespread impact on employment did the
application suggest would result from the realisation of the project.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region; and

(r) has
the project had a significant and/or widespread impact on employment
in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1879 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $70 000
for the MacLennon Nominees Production of Citrus for Coles Supermarkets
project under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett
Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1880 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $250 000
for the Abbotsleigh Citrus Stage Two project under the Structural Adjustment
Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1881 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Transport and Regional Services—With reference to the grant of $250 000
for the Kingaroy and South Burnett Community Private Hospital project
under the Structural Adjustment Package for the Wide Bay Burnett Region
of Queensland:

(1) (a) What total Structural Adjustment Package funds have been paid
to the proponent; and (b) if the funds were paid in one sum, on what
date was the payment made; or if the funds were paid in instalments,
what were the instalment dates and amounts paid on each date.

(2) (a) What is the name of the proponent; and (b) if the proponent
is an organisation or company, does it operate on a commercial or not-for-profit
basis.

(3) What is the proponent’s business address.

(4) Can a description of the project be provided.

(5) Did the department or the Minister receive representations from
the Member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) on behalf of the proponent and/or
the Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee.

(6) When did the department or the Minister inform the proponent, the
Wide Bay Burnett Region Advisory Committee and the Member for Wide Bay
about the funding approval.

(7) When did the department or the Minister publicly announce the grant.

(8) What was the quantum of the grant announced by the department or
the Minister.

(9) In relation to the application for funding:

(a) when
was the funding application lodged with the department;

(b) when
was the funding application referred to the Wide Bay Burnett Region
Advisory Committee;

(c) was
the application varied; if so, when, and what was the nature of the
variation/s;

(d) when
did the committee make a recommendation to the Minister;

(e) what
recommendation did the committee make;

(f) when
was the application approved by the Minister;

(g) did
the funding application comply with the structural adjustment package
guidelines; if not, can details of the non-compliance be provided;

(h) what
total funding was sought, including goods and services tax;

(i) what
was the main business of the proponent at the time of application;

(j) how
did the proponent describe the proposed project;

(k) was
the proposed project a new project or an extension of an existing business
activity;

(l) with
reference to employment outcomes nominated by the proponent:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs did the proponent claim would be generated
by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by
the project,

(iv) what
employment timing was outlined by the proponent, and

(v) what
types of jobs did the proponent claim would be generated by the project
i.e. skilled or unskilled and training opportunities;

(m) what
project planning and design time did the proponent nominate;

(n) if
applicable, what construction start date was nominated by the proponent;

(o) what
project commissioning and/or commencement date was nominated by the
proponent;

(p) what
date did the proponent nominate for the project to become fully operational;

(q) did
a project plan accompany the application form nominating project milestones;
if so, what major milestones were nominated by the proponent;

(r) what
long-term benefits to the Wide Bay Burnett region did the proponent
say would be generated by the project;

(s) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region did the proponent say would be generated by the project;

(t) was
the proposal local, national or export focused;

(u) did
a business plan accompany the application form;

(v) what
evidence did the proponent provide to support the proposal’s feasibility
and did this evidence include a feasibility study; if so, who undertook
the feasibility study;

(w) did
the proponent provide details of projected cash flow, revenue and expenses
for at least the first 5 years; if so, did the proponent include investment
analysis details such as rates of return, liquidity and debt analysis;

(x) were
copies of the proponent’s business plan and financial statements provided;

(y) did
the proponent provide details of similar projects successfully realised;
if so, what projects;

(z) did
the proponent provide a statement indicating the extent to which Commonwealth
funding was needed to realise the project;

(aa) (i)
what evidence did the proponent provide indicating community support
for the application, and (ii) which organisations or individuals provided
letters of support;

(ab) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
did the proponent identify would be provided or had been sought for
the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or local government
funding;

(ac) was
a statement provided attesting that the proponent’s financial contribution
to the project would be a new investment;

(ad) did
the proponent provide evidence that appropriate planning and environmental
approvals had been gained or sought;

(ae) did
the proponent provide a statement describing the likely impact of the
project on other businesses in the region; if so, how did the proponent
describe the likely impact; and

(af) did
the proponent provide details of a likely net increase in employment,
including, if applicable, employment growth resulting from relocation.

(10) In relation to the
progress of the project:

(a) when
did the proponent enter into a grant agreement with the department;

(b) with
reference to employment outcomes:

(i) how
many full-time and part time jobs have been generated by the project,

(ii) how
many direct and indirect jobs have been generated by the project,

(iii) how
many construction jobs were generated by the project,

(iv) over
what time period have these jobs been created, and have employment growth
and employment numbers been sustained, and

(v) what
types of jobs have been generated by the project i.e. skilled or unskilled
and training opportunities;

(c) what
project planning and design time was required;

(d) if
applicable, what was the construction start date;

(e) when
did project operations commence;

(f) when
did the project become fully operational;

(g) were
progress payments negotiated on the basis of project activity; if so:
(i) has the proponent failed to meet any agreed project milestones,
and (ii) have any progress payments been delayed or withheld due
to the failure to meet agreed project milestones;

(h) (i)
what project management structure was established, (ii) what selection
process for the project manager was adopted, and (iii) was a steering
committee established;

(i) (i)
what progress report timing and format was adopted, and (ii) have reporting
requirements been met;

(j) (i)
what monitoring and evaluation process was adopted, and (ii) has the
department undertaken monitoring visits; if so, when;

(k) what
long-term benefits for the region have been generated by the project;

(l) what
flow-on benefits to other businesses, organisations or individuals in
the region have been generated by the project;

(m) has
the project been local, national or export focused;

(n) what
sources of funding, other than structural adjustment package funds,
have supported the project, including Commonwealth and/or state and/or
local government funding;

(o) what
financial contribution has the proponent made to the project;

(p) has
the proponent complied with appropriate planning and environmental laws;
and

(q) what
impact has the project had on other businesses in the region.

(11) In relation to completion of the project funding period (if applicable):

(a) when
did the project and/or funding period conclude;

(b) if
the project is ongoing, what is its source of funding i.e. self-funding
or other sources;

(c) has
the proponent lodged a final report; if so, on what date;

(d) if
applicable, has the final payment to the proponent been made;

(e) how
many direct and indirect full-time equivalent positions have been generated
by the project; and

(f) has
an independent audit been undertaken; if so: (i) who undertook the audit,
(ii) when was it completed, and (iii) what findings did it make.

1882 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) When did Australia first accepted imports of snow peas and sugar
snap peas.

(2) For each of the past 5 financial years, from which countries and
in what quantity has Australia imported snow peas and sugar snap peas.

(3) In relation to each country from which Australia currently accepts
imports of snow peas and sugar snap peas, what chemical residues are
currently tested on these imports.

(4) In relation to each country from which Australia imports snow peas
and sugar snap peas: (a) which nations test for chemical residues; (b)
which agencies or companies perform these chemical residue tests; (c)
what quantity of snow peas and sugar snap peas make up each sample taken
for the chemical residue test; and (d) what is the rate at which samples
are taken and tested for chemical residues, for example, is one sample
taken for each tonne of snow peas and sugar snap peas, or for each half
tonne, or for each container load.

(5) Where chemical residue testing on snow peas and sugar snap peas
bound for Australia is conducted in different nations or by agencies
other than Australian Government agencies, what audit processes are
undertaken by the Commonwealth to ensure the veracity of the testing
conducted in these nations or by agencies other than Australian Government
agencies.

(6) Can details be provided of any instances in the past 5 financial
years where chemical residue testing of snow peas and sugar snap peas
bound for Australia has been found by the Commonwealth to be inadequate.

(7) What penalties or sanctions have been applied to the supplying
nation, shipping operator, trader or agency in cases where chemical
residue testing of snow peas and sugar snap peas bound for Australia
has been found by the Commonwealth to be inadequate.

(8) In relation to each country from which Australia has imported snow
peas and sugar snap peas: On how many occasions have snow peas and sugar
snap peas bound for import to Australia been rejected on the basis that
chemical residue testing has detected unacceptable levels of chemical
residues, and, in each case: (a) which chemical was involved; (b) what
was the concentration of the chemical; and (c) what is the concentration
of each chemical approved by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand.

1883 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) When did the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
(APVMA) or its predecessor, the National Registration Authority, receive
an application for the use of glufosinate ammonium as a broad acre herbicide
in Australia.

(2) Who was the applicant.

(3) When was the final decision made by APVMA regarding the use of
glufosinate ammonium as a broad acre herbicide in Australia and can
a copy of the approval notice or permit be provided, including all details
of conditions of use; if not, why not.

(4) To date, how much has the current application for the use of glufosinate
ammonium as a broad acre herbicide in Australia cost the APVMA to process.

(5) What is the expected total cost to the APVMA of processing the
application.

(6) To date, what is the quantum of fees and charges which have been
levied upon the applicant in relation to the application.

(7) What is the expected total of fees and charges that will be levied
upon the applicant in relation to the application.

1884 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) When did the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
(APVMA) or its predecessor, the National Registration Authority, receive
an application for the use of the herbicide known as Roundup as a broad
acre herbicide in Australia.

(2) Who was the applicant.

(3) When is a final decision expected from the APVMA for the use of
Roundup as a broad acre herbicide in Australia.

(4) To date, how much has the current application for the use of Roundup
as a broad acre herbicide in Australia cost the APVMA to process.

(5) What is the expected total cost to the APVMA of processing the
application.

(6) To date, what is the quantum of fees and charges which have been
levied upon the applicant in relation to the application.

(7) What is the expected total of fees and charges that will be levied
upon the applicant in relation to the application.

1885 Senator
Bishop: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’
Affairs—With reference to the Homecare program:

(1) For the period 1 January to 30 June 2003: How many assessments,
by region, were: (a) made; (b) reviewed up; (c) reviewed down; and (d) deferred
pending funding availability.

(2) Of those assessed but deferred pending availability of funds: How
many, by region, have since been admitted after 1 July 2003.

(3) Of the additional $8.6 million added to the program for the 2003-04
financial year: (a) for each item, how much has been consumed by cost
increases; and (b) how much remains available for increased numbers
of clients in the program.

(4) What cost increases have occurred since 1 July 2003.

1886 Senator
Bishop: To ask the Minister for Justice and Customs—

(1) What is the current public relations budget for the Australian
Customs Service.

(2) How many: (a) journalists; and (b) other staff, are employed.

(3) How many regular publications are printed.

(4) What is the size of each distribution list.

(5) How much was spent on postage in the 2002-03 financial year.

(6) How many media releases did the Minister issue in each of the past
24 months.

(7) What sum was spent on film media products in each of the following
financial years: (a) 2002-03; and (b) 2003-04.

(8) How many journalists are employed under contract.

(9) How much has been spent in 2003 on transport charters.

(10) How much has been spent in 2003 for services to external media
agencies.

(11) How much has been spent on the Viarsa media campaign.

1887 Senator
Bishop: To ask the Minister for Justice and Customs—

(1) What is the estimated cost of the charter of the Southern Supporter .

(2) Who owns the vessel; and (b) what is the term of the charter.

(3) In the recent pursuit of the Viarsa, when did the Southern Supporter first come within sight of the Viarsa .

(4) What attempts did the crew of the Southern Supporter make to board the Viarsa .

(5) On how many occasions and on which days of the chase was the Viarsa ordered to heave to or change direction.

(6) (a) What arms are carried on board the Southern Supporter ; and (b) were they deployed for use during
the chase.

(7) What assistance was sought and given by the Governments of France,
South Africa and Great Britain in apprehending the Viarsa .

(8) Will the Australian Government be asked to reimburse those governments
for assisting the Southern Supporter ; if so, what sum is estimated for each.

(9) (a) What is the estimated cost of sending Royal Australian Naval
personnel to sail the Viarsa back to Australia; and (b) how will that cost be funded.

(10) Is any consideration being given to installing heavy armament
on the Southern Supporter to facilitate its interception power; if
not, why not.

2176 Senator
Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health
and Ageing—With reference to the report, The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Peoples, which identified poorer living conditions and
health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians than for
non-Indigenous Australians, can specific details be provided of current
or planned programs, including details of budgets and targets for populations
reached and outcome improvements in respect of the following problems
identified in the report:

(a) over a quarter of the communities with a population of 50 or more
that were not connected to the town water supply had failed water quality
tests at least once during the previous 12 months;

(b) a fifth of the communities had water supplies that had not been
tested in the past 12 months;

(c) more than one in three communities with 50 people or more experienced
water restrictions in the past 12 months;

(d) just under half of the communities with a population of 50 or more
reported that sewerage system overflows or leakages had occurred in
the past 12 months;

(e) ponding of stagnant water occurred in 42 per cent of the communities
with a population of more than 50;

(f) Indigenous adults were about half as likely as non-Indigenous adults
to be employed in health-related occupations;

(g) Indigenous separation rates were higher than non-Indigenous rates
for all age groups except those aged 75 years and over, with the highest
rate differences being for both males and females in the age groups
between 35 and 64 years;

(h) principal diagnoses for which high incidence ratios were evident
in the 2000-01 financial year were: (i) care involving dialysis (6.6:1
for males, 12.6:1 for females), (ii) endrocrine, nutritional and metabolic
diseases (3.5:1 for males, 3.8:1 for females), and (iii) diseases of
the respiratory system (2.6:1 for males, 3.1:1 for females);

(i) babies of Indigenous mothers were twice as likely to be of low
birthweight (13 per cent of births) than babies of non-Indigenous mothers
(6 per cent);

(j) the perinatal death rate for births to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander mothers was 20 per thousand live births and stillbirths, compared
with 10 per thousand for non-Indigenous mothers;

(k) reports of long-term health conditions increased with age from
34 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged under
5 years to 99 per cent of Indigenous Australians aged 55 years and over;

(l) eye/vision problems were the most commonly reported conditions
(29 per cent), followed by asthma (16 per cent), back problems (15 per
cent) and ear/hearing problems (15 per cent);

(m) the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance
System reports disease rates for Indigenous Australians are many times
those among non-Indigenous Australians with incidence ratios particularly
high for: (i) gonococcal infection (69:1), (ii) syphilis (42:1), and
(iii) chlamydia (18:1); and for most other communicable diseases reported
to the surveillance system, the incidence rates for Indigenous persons
are generally in the range 5 to 10 times higher than for non-Indigenous
persons;

(n) incidence ratios for: (i) ischaemic heart disease
hospitalisations are 1.4:1 for males and 2.4:1 for females, (ii) respiratory
diseases, 2.6:1 for males and 3.1:1 for females, (iii) infectious and
parasitic diseases, 2.7:1 for males and 3.1:1 for females, and (iv)
injury and poisoning, 1.9:1 for males and 2.3:1 for females;

(o) among the latter group (injury and poisons),
hospitalisations that are attributed to ‘assault’ are 8 times higher
for Indigenous males and 28 times higher for Indigenous females, compared
with non-Indigenous males and females respectively;

(p) Indigenous children living in non-remote areas
were less likely than non-Indigenous children to have been breastfed
for more than 6 months;

(q) higher proportions of Indigenous Australians
in non-remote areas reported medium to high vegetable intake (two or
more serves per day) but more non-Indigenous Australians reported medium
to high fruit intake;

(r) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
were more likely to consume whole (full cream) milk rather than reduced
fat alternatives and to add salt to meals after cooking;

(s) the percentage of Indigenous adults classified
as overweight or obese was 61 per cent, compared with 48 per cent of
non-Indigenous adults;

(t) Indigenous persons aged 18 years and over were
twice as likely as non-Indigenous persons to be current smokers (51
per cent compared with 24 per cent); with higher rates applying to both
sexes and across all age groups; and

(u) Indigenous adults aged 18 years and over were
less likely (42 per cent) than non-Indigenous adults (62 per cent) to
have consumed alcohol in the week prior to interview for the 2001 National
Health Survey; however, those who consumed alcohol were more likely
to have consumed at risky/high levels than non-Indigenous consumers
(29 per cent compared with 17 per cent).

2177 Senator
Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health
and Ageing—With reference to the answer to question on notice no.
1643 (Senate Hansard , 8 September 2003, p. 14018);

(1) Given that there is an apparent discrepancy in the Australian Grand
Prix Corporation’s (AGPC) claim of 55 billion television viewers of
the Formula 1 series, (350 million viewers per race, multiplied by 17,
the number of races, equals 5.9 billion, not 55 billion), and given
that the figure of 350 million per race also cannot be proved, is the
Minister satisfied that the Formula 1 Grand Prix is an event of international
significance; if so, why.

(2) Given that according to the AGPC, spending by additional overseas
visitors attracted by the Formula 1 Grand Prix equates to $15.3 million;
that this spending equates to about $3 million in actual profit (assuming
normal commercial margins); and that the operating loss of the event
is now $10 to 12 million, a major factor being the race licence fee (believed
to be $20-25 million, exported in US dollars): does the Minister consider
that losing the event would cause economic hardship to Australia; if
so, why.

(3) Given that the grounds on which the AGPC applied for an exemption
from the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 appear to be incorrect,
will the Minister give consideration to cancelling the exemption for
the 2004 race; if not, why not.

(4) In light of the Government’s recently-stated intention to sign
the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: (a) can the Government
confirm that this includes a commitment not to permit the export of
tobacco advertising; and (b) does this mean that the Australian Grand
Prix, because it is broadcast worldwide, will not receive an exemption
from the requirements of the Tobacco Advertising Act for 2004 and beyond;
if not, why not.